Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Poll: Which position was better argued and supported?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

Would you say then that the internal is no more than a reflection of the external?

Could elaborate on what you mean by a reflection?

Your idea that randomness is only an apparent observation, as opposed to a truly representative observation, is as much a presupposition as Popper's stance.

I'm not sure where these "apparent" vs. "truly representative" observations came from - aren't all observations apparent to the observer? The observed randomness as explained by quantum physics indicates that our current descriptions of physical systems are at their core necessarily incomplete due to quantum indeterminacy. Again, these are current models based on our current abilities to observe. Our inability to design experiments which can get around the quantum indeterminacy measurement problem only affects our current models.

I've just posited a way in which such phenomena could be investigated, and it should be dismissed out of hand because of unwarranted methodological bias?

Nobody's dismissing anything, and again, there is no bias. The problem is that the proposed supernatural causes of the observed phenomena have yet to be demonstrably shown to be investigable. I've already shown why your extension from the indirect evidence used to posit dark matter & black holes to positing supernatural causes for observed phenomena is flawed. It's the same reason that, when the scientific community attempts to refine the current models explaining dark matter, nobody attempts to rationally posit that there are invisible pixies comprising the mass which would supernaturally (magically) explain the observed phenomena.

This "we currently have no way", so "we're forced to" is circular reasoning.

Could you explain in more detail how this is circular? Because what you're saying is essentially that, by analogy, "I currently don't own a car, so I'm forced to take the bus to work", is circular reasoning.

The presupposition there is that only natural causes have natural effects, ruling out supernatural causes. I don't see any sufficient reasons being given for that.

Again, this is a common misunderstanding of how science works. As Eugenie Scott puts it: "Science is a way of knowing that attempts to explain the natural world using natural causes. It is agnostic toward the supernatural – it neither confirms nor rejects it." Nobody is attempting to negate the existence of the supernatural. The burden of proof rests firmly with those claiming supernatural causation, and no presuppositions must be made for one to hold to methodological naturalism as expressed above by Ms. Scott.

What then do you make of the work of Schoonmaker, Kubler-Ross, Weiss, Winter, Rawlings, or Zaleski?

I am only somewhat familiar with a couple of those names you listed & their work. And since our conversation appears to be approaching more and more the territory of discussion/debate, I'll ask that, if these external sources are going to be seriously considered during our discussion, you clearly state any claims you wish to imply by listing those names and provide references.

What do you consider a reasonable body of facts? Let's not venture into special pleading territory, my friend. If we do posit what we think is a reasonable body of facts for other kinds of explanations it wouldn't be consistent to plead for another standard with explanations that don't comport with your presuppositions.

I whole-heartedly agree that we should be applying the same standards to various claims. If, for instance, we were to grant credibility to one specific claim of supernatural causation based on a reasonable body of facts, we must also grant the same credibility to other supernatural claims which may contradict the first. Do you see the problem here? It's certainly not special pleading for one to expect extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, even if the claim is their own - indeed, especially if the claim is their own. Anyone who truly believes their claim is truth and wishes to see it victorious under scrutiny should welcome even the strictest standards of investigation & falsifiability.

We all necessarily come into each topic with some presuppositions of our own, and it is our consciousness of that fact that engenders progress.

Again, no presuppositions are required save the basic assumptions we all have to live with, hard solipsism notwithstanding, of course.

You must realize that this paragraph here is dismissing the entire venture of inductive reasoning. Do you really think that inductive reasoning has no propensity at all to arrive at what is most likely true?

There are many problems with induction. Karl Popper expressed criticism of it and said we should instead be focusing on falsification. That said, one can definitely make an inductive argument and say that, since predictability (the type you mentioned in your Feb. 18th post) does not appear to be possible (as yet), determinism is in trouble. However, one could also make an inductive argument regarding the noticeable increase over time in our ability to accurately make predictions in general and posit that our deterministic abilities will continue to increase to ultimately prove determinism to be true. This is just one of the problems with induction - it is too easily affected by the presuppositions of those using it.

p.s. As I mentioned, our discussion is approaching a level of discourse that may be more suitable in an actual debate thread. Would that justify one of us proposing an OP and starting a new thread in one of the debate forums?

Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

In my opinion the Homosexuality/sexuality is more innate thing than a conscious choice. That's why it is a real crime to consider such people poor or foolish. We can't choose parents, genes, appearance, eye color which should be inbred. So why do some persons begin to judge people by their sexuality? It is the same thing when we consider somebody a bad sort because he or she has blue eye color or too old parents. Sounds terrible indeed.

Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

Firstly, let's clarify the question. When you ask if homosexuality/sexuality is a choice, what exactly do you mean by "homosexuality/sexuality"?

According to the Oxford dictionary, homosexuality is defined as the quality or characteristic of being sexually attracted solely to people of one's own sex. In this case, I believe that homosexuality is innate. One does not choose physical attraction to another. In order to test this, find a picture of someone you consider to be unattractive to you and then choose to be attracted to that individual. Adversely, find a picture of someone you consider to be attractive and then choose not to be attracted to that individual. It doesn't work that way.

According to the Oxford dictionary, sexuality is defined in two ways:

1. A person's sexual orientation or preference

2. Sexual activity

Like homosexuality, I believe that sexuality, as defined by the first definition, is innate; however, sexuality, as defined by the second definition, is a choice because it is an action.

In conclusion, our sexual preferences are innate. Looking at the majority (I say "majority" because there are always exceptions) of people who consider themselves to be homosexual, they will express that they have always felt different, even before reaching sexual maturity. I also conclude that it is something that, at it's core, can never change. One can, however, decide not to act upon the urges and attractions, but they will still be present.

It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

Originally Posted by ladykrimson

In conclusion, our sexual preferences are innate. Looking at the majority (I say "majority" because there are always exceptions) of people who consider themselves to be homosexual, they will express that they have always felt different, even before reaching sexual maturity. I also conclude that it is something that, at it's core, can never change. One can, however, decide not to act upon the urges and attractions, but they will still be present.

Given the "human condition" I find it quite likely it sexuality could be innate, a choice, or (probably more likely) a combination of things (not necessarily innate or choice exclusively) and varies by individual.

It seems difficult to support sexuality is completely innate and that it cannot change over the course of any given persons lifetime???

Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Given the "human condition" I find it quite likely it sexuality could be innate, a choice, or (probably more likely) a combination of things (not necessarily innate or choice exclusively) and varies by individual.

It seems difficult to support sexuality is completely innate and that it cannot change over the course of any given persons lifetime???

I tried to make the distinction "at its core" because I realize that there are always other factors in development. I believe, however, that the core of our likes and dislikes remain the same, for the majority of our lives. That is not to say that we cannot develop new preferences as we grow and discover new things, but our core attractions are basically innate and remain unchanged (mostly - as I said, there are always exceptions).

I don't know if my articulation was sufficient to convey my point; sometimes, I have difficulty in that area.

It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

I don't know if my articulation was sufficient to convey my point; sometimes, I have difficulty in that area.

A limitation I think we all fear at one level or another.

Though, in this particular case, I think your point is clear, but I am not sure I agree with it.

Like you say, certainly "there are exceptions", but I don't think in general people have an "unchangeable core" and would like to see some support.
The person you were when you were 20, is different than at 30, 40 (or whatever).
Some things may be the same, but some change, and what changes of course, varies by person.

Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

Originally Posted by Belthazor

A limitation I think we all fear at one level or another.

Though, in this particular case, I think your point is clear, but I am not sure I agree with it.

Like you say, certainly "there are exceptions", but I don't think in general people have an "unchangeable core" and would like to see some support.
The person you were when you were 20, is different than at 30, 40 (or whatever).
Some things may be the same, but some change, and what changes of course, varies by person.

Our fundamental cores remain constant. How we react to them and indulge them is a different story. I try not to use myself as a reference, but in this case, it will help me to explain.

EXAMPLE: I have always loved animals. Even as a baby, I've seen video of my reaction to them. I have a natural empathy towards them. As a child, I planned to have a house full of animals when I got older. As a young adult, I acted upon that dream and started adopting animals. Over the years, I learned that each additional animal I brought home divided my attentions, so that each animal received less attention. I also learned that both the animals and I suffered as a result. Now, I won't have more than one animal. I still adore animals, and if I thought I could manage it, I would still have a house full of them. I will not act upon this because I have learned.

EXAMPLE: At 11 years old, my mother introduced me to bagels and cream cheese. I've always adored it, but recently, I've had to cut back on cholesterol. I still love cream cheese, but I choose not to eat it.

EXAMPLE: I have heard that wine is an acquired taste, so I have over the last year started trying to drink it, occasionally, with some of my dinners. I even joined a wine club. I can tolerate it, though there are some that are just so bitter. I have tried almost all types of wine and champagne, including some of the most well-loved and expensive. I just can't seem to get around the bitterness of it, even the so-called "sweet" wines. I do enjoy a glass of Asti champagne around the new year, but I couldn't see drinking it on a regular basis.

EXAMPLE: I have never really liked country music. My whole family is very musical, but they are always trying to get me into their music. I've tried to "acquire" some of their taste, and I can handle a few country musicians. I discovered later on that I only liked these particular artists because they sound more secular. I still don't like country music, but I appreciate it.

Our likes and dislikes can change over our lifetime, but they don't usually change because we've chosen to change them. They change, for the most part, because of our body chemistry. That makes it innate.

It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

Originally Posted by Lukecash12

Can you prove that sexuality isn't behavior?

Let's look at it logically. Merriam-Webster's dictionary (MWD) defines behavior as the manner in which one conducts oneself. MWD also defines sexuality as sexual activity, so, by definition, sexuality IS behavior.

For purposes of this argument, however, I am assuming that the OP is referring to sexual orientation (our sexual attractions). That, in my opinion, cannot be chosen.

It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

Our fundamental cores remain constant. How we react to them and indulge them is a different story. I try not to use myself as a reference, but in this case, it will help me to explain.

EXAMPLE: I have always loved animals. Even as a baby, I've seen video of my reaction to them. I have a natural empathy towards them. As a child, I planned to have a house full of animals when I got older. As a young adult, I acted upon that dream and started adopting animals. Over the years, I learned that each additional animal I brought home divided my attentions, so that each animal received less attention. I also learned that both the animals and I suffered as a result. Now, I won't have more than one animal. I still adore animals, and if I thought I could manage it, I would still have a house full of them. I will not act upon this because I have learned.

EXAMPLE: At 11 years old, my mother introduced me to bagels and cream cheese. I've always adored it, but recently, I've had to cut back on cholesterol. I still love cream cheese, but I choose not to eat it.

EXAMPLE: I have heard that wine is an acquired taste, so I have over the last year started trying to drink it, occasionally, with some of my dinners. I even joined a wine club. I can tolerate it, though there are some that are just so bitter. I have tried almost all types of wine and champagne, including some of the most well-loved and expensive. I just can't seem to get around the bitterness of it, even the so-called "sweet" wines. I do enjoy a glass of Asti champagne around the new year, but I couldn't see drinking it on a regular basis.

EXAMPLE: I have never really liked country music. My whole family is very musical, but they are always trying to get me into their music. I've tried to "acquire" some of their taste, and I can handle a few country musicians. I discovered later on that I only liked these particular artists because they sound more secular. I still don't like country music, but I appreciate it.

Our likes and dislikes can change over our lifetime, but they don't usually change because we've chosen to change them. They change, for the most part, because of our body chemistry. That makes it innate.

I am not understanding?
You start saying cores are constant, give examples, then at the end say they can change (due to "body chemistry")???

To your examples:
I ate tomatoes when I was young. Never now.
My ex grew up on rock and listened to nothing else. By the time she was 35, nothing but country from then on
There is one kind of "sweet" and thousands of "bitters". Enjoying wine is enjoying "tasting" the many different bitters that are out there.

Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

Originally Posted by Belthazor

I am not understanding?
You start saying cores are constant, give examples, then at the end say they can change (due to "body chemistry")???

To your examples:
I ate tomatoes when I was young. Never now.
My ex grew up on rock and listened to nothing else. By the time she was 35, nothing but country from then on
There is one kind of "sweet" and thousands of "bitters". Enjoying wine is enjoying "tasting" the many different bitters that are out there.

Sexuality can change over ones lifetime. This seems quite clear...

Sorry, I meant that fundamental cores are usually constant. Nothing is absolute. But our likes and dislikes don't change because we choose to change them; they usually change on their own. Example - you used to like tomatoes...now you don't. Did you wake up one morning and think to yourself, "Gee, I think I'll hate tomatoes." Do you think you can force yourself to like them again?

As for sexual orientation, I can't imagine it changing...but that is just me. I don't think you can choose to change it. I believe it is a part of your core and is unchanging, but that is only based on my personal experience and research.

I hope that clears things up. Sorry for the confusion.

It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

Originally Posted by ladykrimson

Sorry, I meant that fundamental cores are usually constant. Nothing is absolute. But our likes and dislikes don't change because we choose to change them; they usually change on their own. Example - you used to like tomatoes...now you don't. Did you wake up one morning and think to yourself, "Gee, I think I'll hate tomatoes." Do you think you can force yourself to like them again?

And I think in general you are correct
But I also think we can decide to change most things if we want to.
We used to grow tomatoes in a small garden when I was young. I used to eat them all the time. One day I took a bite and kinda went hmmmm, and spit it out. Pretty much gave them up after that (have no idea why...). I am not sure if I could like them again???

But, yrs ago I learned to like beer! Hated the taste (but, liked the effect so..) at first and would drink 1/2 a can at a time so I didn't have to taste it as much. After some time went by didn't mind the taste as long as it was cold. Ten yrs ago I got sick for a short time, but since then the thought of a beer makes me nauseous. could I learn to like it again? I don't know...it would be a struggle

As for sexual orientation, I can't imagine it changing...but that is just me. I don't think you can choose to change it. I believe it is a part of your core and is unchanging, but that is only based on my personal experience and research.

Agreed. I have never considered "jumping the fence", however, if I was a woman I think I would give it very serious consideration!!
I have a family member who was dating women exclusively till his 30's, then took a little "rest" from dating, then switched sides.

It wasn't one of them "oh, I always felt different, even when I was young" or "played with barbies and wanted to wear dresses" and finally "came out" kinda things.

He just quit dating with women and went with men, so I believe a person can change, though how common that is I have no clue. I just think it does happen...

Re: 1 vs 1 homosexuality w/poll

Originally Posted by Belthazor

And I think in general you are correct
But I also think we can decide to change most things if we want to.
We used to grow tomatoes in a small garden when I was young. I used to eat them all the time. One day I took a bite and kinda went hmmmm, and spit it out. Pretty much gave them up after that (have no idea why...). I am not sure if I could like them again???

But, yrs ago I learned to like beer! Hated the taste (but, liked the effect so..) at first and would drink 1/2 a can at a time so I didn't have to taste it as much. After some time went by didn't mind the taste as long as it was cold. Ten yrs ago I got sick for a short time, but since then the thought of a beer makes me nauseous. could I learn to like it again? I don't know...it would be a struggle

Agreed. I have never considered "jumping the fence", however, if I was a woman I think I would give it very serious consideration!!
I have a family member who was dating women exclusively till his 30's, then took a little "rest" from dating, then switched sides.

It wasn't one of them "oh, I always felt different, even when I was young" or "played with barbies and wanted to wear dresses" and finally "came out" kinda things.

He just quit dating with women and went with men, so I believe a person can change, though how common that is I have no clue. I just think it does happen...